Actions speak louder than words? The impact of subjective norms in the supply chain on green innovation

Abstract

PurposeAdopting the theory of planned behavior, this study attempts to investigate how subjective norms in the supply chain influence a firm's green innovation and how such influences are contingent upon the firm's internal and external factors (i.e. flexibility orientation and environmental dynamism). Two types of subjective norms are examined, i.e. injunctive norms (what supply chain partners say) and descriptive norms (what supply chain partners do).Design/methodology/approachUsing survey data of 178 Chinese small and medium-sized manufacturers, we employ hierarchical linear regression to test the proposed hypotheses.FindingsOur results indicate that both injunctive and descriptive norms are instrumental in stimulating firms to take actions on green innovation. Moreover, the flexibility orientation of a firm can strengthen the effect of descriptive norms. It is also observed that environmental dynamism weakens the efficacy of injunctive norms but strengthens that of descriptive norms on green innovation.Originality/valueThis study is among the first to apply the theory of planned behavior to explain the microfoundations of focal firm's green innovation and distinguish two types of subjective norms in the supply chain. In addition, it extends the theory of planned behavior by revealing internal and external contingent factors (i.e. flexibility orientation and environmental dynamism) of the relationship between subjective norms and firm behaviors.

Antecedents of viewers’ watch behavior toward YouTube videos: evidence from the most populous Muslim-majority country

“…Conversely, if there is no perceived social pressure or norm to watch a particular video, an individual may be less likely to watch it. This finding also matched the results obtained by previous studies that also found the significance of subjective norms in determining people's intention and actual behavior (Nguyen et al, 2023;Abd-Mutalib et al, 2023;Shou et al, 2022;Balikcioglu et al, 2022;Nair, 2021;Ashraf et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2020;Agbetunde et al, 2022).…”

Digital transformation as the fuel for sailing toward sustainable success: the roles of coordination mechanisms and social norms

“…In this regard, firms will encourage different departments to work together and collaborate with customers to achieve process enhancement. Second, the wide adoption of sustainable shipping makes the firm consider such practice is necessary for it to sustain survival or growth (Shou et al, 2023), which will motivate the firm to operate in the same manner. Specifically, strong descriptive norms can serve as a pressure for shipping firms to utilize cross-functional and customer coordination to further drive DT-empowered sustainable shipping to keep themselves from lagging behind, or, better yet, outperforming their competitors.…”

“…For instance, in the face of digital organizational change, people-oriented leadership behavior enables employees to transition this change more smoothly, reducing their emotional resistance and improving innovation performance. In addition, in the research related to corporate sustainability, it is also found that the individual behaviors and normative cognition of leaders are also important drivers of green behavior in organizations (Shou et al. , 2022; Xing et al.…”

“…, 2015; Yip and Schweitzer, 2022). Given that sustainable research considers the leader’s personal behavior an important influencer of corporate green behavior (Shou et al. , 2022), we propose that leaders’ injunctive and descriptive norms of leaders are boundary variables outside the OIPT research framework.…”

Sociocultural factors and social entrepreneurial intention during the COVID-19 pandemic: Preliminary evidence from developing countries

“…To establish the theoretical underpinning of this study, we mobilized the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and the entrepreneurial event model (Shapero & Sokol, 1982). These theoretical backgrounds received prominence and credibility to explain the formation of intention throughout many research areas, such as technology acceptance (e.g., Fink et al, 2022;Marangunić & Granić, 2015), consumer services (e.g., Paul et al, 2016;Timpanaro & Cascone, 2022), supply chain management (e.g., Kamble et al, 2019;Shou et al, 2022), family business (e.g., Graves et al, 2022;Singh et al, 2021), product innovation (e.g., Kim et al, 2019;Tóth et al, 2020), small business (e.g., Harrison et al, 1997;Sandhu & El-Gohary, 2022), and absorptive capacity (e.g., Chao & Yu, 2022;Mo et al, 2022). More interestingly, these foundations have recently emerged as a cornerstone in investigating the COVID-19 influence on intention research across several fields, including psychology (e.g., Islam et al, 2020;Shanka & Gebremariam Kotecho, 2021);tourism (e.g., Jeon et al, 2022;Xu et al, 2022); sustainability (e.g., Cahigas et al, 2022;Seong et al, 2021); and, more importantly, entrepreneurship (e.g., Lang et al, 2022;Li et al, 2022;Seah, 2021).…”